Kapila v. at & T Wireless Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[b]eeause stated causes of action remain in the instant lawsuit, it is impossible to determine the ‘substantially prevailing’ party until such time as all pending counts are resolved”
• holding that “[b]ecause stated causes of action remain in the instant lawsuit, it is impossible to determine the ‘substantially prevailing’ party until such time as all pending counts are resolved”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• The Fallstaff Group, Inc., Etc. v. Mpa Brickell Key, LLC, Etc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2014-08-06· cited 6×
• Salame v. 1st Priority Restoration, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-05-24
• NOREEN SABLOTSKY v. EDUARDO GONZALEZ-HERNANDEZ
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2020-12-02
• STEPHEN HESS v. PMG-S2 SUNNY ISLES, LLC
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2023-10-04

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hensley v. Eckerhart
  Supreme Court· 1983-05-16· cited 17,202×
• Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1992-07-23· cited 185×
• Gibbs Const. Co. v. SL Page Corp.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-04-14· cited 29×
• E & a PRODUCE CORP. v. Superior Garlic Int'l, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2003-12-10· cited 12×
• Cadenhead v. Gaetz
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-07-25· cited 3×